Uproar After Florida Is Exempted From Offshore Drilling

The Trump administration’s decision to exempt Florida from expanded offshore drilling kicked off a frenzy Wednesday in other coastal states, with governors from both political parties asking: Why not us?

“We cannot afford to take a chance with the beauty, the majesty and the economic value and vitality of our wonderful coastline,” South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R), who backed President Trump in his state’s competitive 2016 primary, said in a statement.

“Not Off Our Coast,” North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) wrote in a tweet. “We’ve been clear: this would bring unacceptable risks to our economy, our environment, and our coastal communities.”

The Florida carve-out, announced Tuesday by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, created new doubts about the fate of the entire offshore drilling decision — and immediately became another challenge for Republicans as they work to hold off Democrats in the midterm elections.

Zinke’s announcement that he would take offshore drilling “off the table” in order to protect Florida’s tourism industry was dismissed by critics as political theater designed to benefit Florida’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott, who is likely to challenge Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson for his seat this year.

California state officials plan to make their case to Interior using the same arguments as Florida, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra told POLITICO. The state also boasts a huge coastal tourism economy and, like Florida, hosts military bases whose operations could be disrupted by oil spills or offshore drilling operations.

In a statement, the powerful American Petroleum Institute said Tuesday’s reversal was “premature,” and it said “the administration and policymakers should follow the established process before making any decisions or conclusions that would undermine our nation’s energy security.”

During his first campaign for governor in 2010, Scott called for drilling offshore. After the Deepwater Horizon explosion, he added language to his campaign website to state that he wanted drilling done in an “environmentally sound way and adhering to the strictest of safety standards.”

During his first term, Scott took no meaningful steps to expand drilling. But when Trump’s administration proposed an expansion of offshore drilling Jan. 4, Scott said he opposed the idea and sought a meeting with Zinke. That rejection sounds different from his stance when he first ran for governor in 2010 and he was open to drilling. We give Scott a Full Flop.

WaPo talked about this. Basically, they are so stupid they sabotaged their own cause.
Even red states with coasts are against this.
The exemption is to protect Trump’s Margo a Largo

Scott MB

Exactly, Trump doesn’t want oil dumped on his property. However, by exempting FL it opens up a can of worms for him. This is going to be a big pie in the face for the dotard as well as rethuglicans. Go ahead and force states to allow offshore drilling, all the states need to do is pass laws that make it so cast prohibitive to the oil companies. They could also require the companies to share the majority of profits with said state for “enviromental” upkeep. Hit the companies in the pocket book and they will run like squirrels.

Bj Lincoln

I love your idea! Maryland has a GOP Governor but he acts like a Dem and I bet he would love it too. We have so many vacation spots along the Eastern shore that would be awful if there was drilling.

clay

Hogan’s already given the MD AG the go-ahead to file suit.

Tunamelt

How about oil companies have to put down a security deposit just like when one rents an apartment? Equal to 150% of the worst case scenario of environmental damage. Returnable 7 generations after the last well is drilled (just in case).

Joe in PA

I think Joe just posted excerpts from those articles, but I was surprised that Mar-a-lagostino was not mentioned prominently. That was my first thought.

Ninja0980

And to help Rick Scott’s Senate run.

Tawreos

So Politico is going to ignore that the president owns property in Florida that could be impacted by a spill?

Treant

Screw the uproar, launch the lawsuits charging discrimination, favoritism, and whatever protecting the ugly piece of crap that is Grift-A-Gogo is.

clay

MD’s GOP Gov. has already given his AG the go-ahead.

Tawreos

OT: This article made me very happy, it talks about how unhappy the president is and why he is unhappy.

Given that South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama voted overwhelmingly for Trump, and North Carolina also voted for him though by a smaller margin, I think they knew what they were doing. I just hope that they don’t come whining to Congress to bail them out when the next Deepwater Horizon ruins their coastlines. I think California, Oregon, and Washington are going to be in court and enacting their own laws to prevent despoilation of their coasts. As for the red states, let them reap the consequences of their actions.

Friday’s_cat

I said similar, when Trump starts a war, draft registered republicans to fight it.

cleos_mom

In this, as in other matters, GOP voters* in the states you cited thought that when the shit hit the fan, it would splatter on someone else.

I hope they vigorously oppose this, for the sake of the environment. But they are not innocent victims.

*Including people who voted third party, wrote someone in — sacred political steer or otherwise — or stayed home and didn’t vote because “both parties are the same.”

coram nobis

North Carolina has enough of a problem with pig effluent coming down from the agribusinesses upriver.

As for the Pacific coast states, if they make enough trouble in court, and the oil companies compare it to the cost of building rigs off the Pacific Coast — harsher weather, the Cascadia fault risk, and such — the industry may back off.

Xaca

Take your energy policy and put it where the sun don’t shine.

canoebum

Actually, they should put the energy policy where the sun shines all the time!

BlackGayVeganAtheist

It is funny seeing all of the “drill, baby, drill” Republicans backtracking. “I meant ‘drill somewhere else…not in MY state or backyard.'”

More often than not, they’re the ones who don’t have the commercial hog farm, titty bar or auto graveyard in their back yard, because they kick up a stink about it. Those end up in the back yards of people who ‘had better things to do’, were so open-minded their brains fell out or who didn’t have the money and resources to do what the NIMBYs did. Of those, only the last group can claim to be victims.

AmeriCanadian

I hope you realize I was being slightly sarcastic. NIMBYs get a bad name, usually thanks to politicians, yet it is the hypocritical politicians that are screaming the loudest “Not In My State”.

In office Mr Trump’s legislative accomplishments have been modest, and mixed. A tax reform that cut rates and simplified some of the rules was also regressive and unfunded. His antipathy to regulation has invigorated animal spirits, but at an unknown cost to the environment and human health. His proposed withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and the fledgling Trans-Pacific Partnership was, in our view, foolish, but hardly beyond the pale of Republican thinking.

Mr Trump has been a poor president in his first year. In his second he may cause America grave damage. But the presidential telenovela is a diversion. He and his administration need to be held properly to account
for what they actually do.

Karl Dubhe 2

TYVM. 🙂

The_Wretched

The net is not simpler rules and the people who had to do a sum, make adjustments and use the lookup table have the same exact steps.

BobSF_94117

Ouch. Here’s hoping it’s repeatedly quoted on Fox News.

whollyfool

“The danger of the Trump character obsession is that it distracts from deeper changes in America’s system of government. The bureaucracy is so understaffed that it is relying on industry hacks to draft policy. They have shaped deregulation and written clauses into the tax bill that pass costs from shareholders to society. Because Senate Republicans confirmed so few judges in Mr Obama’s last two years, Mr Trump is moving the judiciary dramatically to the right. And non-stop outrage also drowns out Washington’s problem: the power of the swamp and its disconnection from ordinary voters.”

JCF

No, “Economist”, it’s worse…

Tomcat

Does the back cover show pants ablaze also.

John30013

Well, he made the cover of Time magazine again….

That_Looks_Delicious

The very stable genius essentially invited lawsuits that he can’t win. Any state can now sue to have the same exemption as Florida.

Two of the biggest parts of the Maine economy are tourism and fishing. We’re real pleased with this. Besides, there are many already drilled wells in the Gulf that are just sitting capped because it is not economically feasible to to pump the oil out. So WHY do we need new wells??? This makes as much sense as opening more coal mines. Or as much sense as building all those new buildings in Tucson that just sit empty and become tax write-offs.

canoebum

Environmentalists, lefties and the Obama administration all opposed this, so a stick must be shoved in their collective eye. No other reason is necessary.

ColdCountry

Can we guess who the only Atlantic shore governor is who supports off shore drilling? Doesn’t he realize that kissing Dump’s ass is no longer such a good idea? Better question, doesn’t he care about his state? Oh, that’s rhetorical, isn’t it?

boatboy_srq

All the GOTea governors support offshore drilling – off the shores of other states, that is.

I’m guessing they envisioned the Pacific coast strewn with rigs, and not their own beaches fouled with spills.

ColdCountry

I think LePage feels that it would support the tourist trade to have wells off the coast of Acadia National Park. Also, he can’t run again, and the state legislature blocked him at almost every turn, so, fuck the state, right?

pj

what buildings in tucson are you talking about?

ColdCountry

I don’t know if it’s still true – after typing that I realized how long ago that was – but back in the 80s they were dozing lots for building, and either leaving them, or building big warehouse type things that then stood empty.

Robincho

Hmmm. That substance caked around the corners of Skeletor’s cockholster is orange…

clay

it also removed the restriction on international actors within 200 nautical miles of the US. Those can be re-imposed, but only is someone in the Turmp Administration “remembers” to restrict the Russians.

This is ripe for a lawsuit.
There is no valid reason one can come up with for why Florida is exempt for this.
The only reason it is to protect Mar-A-Logo and Rick Scott’s Senate bid.

The_Wretched

I see. Mar-a-loo and Scott paid Trump his vig.

Nic Peterson

More domestic production does not help Putin. Why would Donnie twoscoops cross his master?

TrollopeReader

Mr. sec’y Zinke: I live on the East side of the Canal — just so you know, our economy certainly doesn’t depend on clean beaches, pristine bay, sound and ocean (or fresh) waters; no need for supplies of cod, haddock, lobster, tuna and great white sharks .. nope, no major hotels, motels, private residences depend on over 50 million Americans within a five hour drive or so (if the bridges can handle them). Nor do the two islands to our south . Noope. Drill away, drill now, baby!!

(um, sarcasm).

JWC

Again no fore thought just “blast away”

Halou

The reason for this is because mar-a-lago is a coastal property, and it would spoil the king’s view of the scenery.